News-Record.com

"It is important for voters to know where a judge stands on certain issues," she said.

There's no doubt about Hunter. On her Web site, she compares Bush to Julius Caesar, the "dictator of Rome" who "aggregated all power to himself to accomplish his own ends.

"In Caesar's day, the Senate decided that Julius Caesar had gone too far and that he had to be stopped, regardless of the consequences. The solution of the Roman Senate was to murder Julius Caesar.

"We are more civilized than the ancient Senate of Rome. We have a remedy; it's called impeachment."

Whether voters agree or not, Hunter's strident denunciation of the president raises the question: What's that got to do with the state Supreme Court?

The man she likely will file to run against, incumbent Justice Mark Martin, would say not much. His campaign Web site offers a more traditional presentation of experience and qualifications. It's not political at all, which is what Martin says is necessary to preserve the dignity, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

It's also, frankly, a lot less interesting than Hunter's site.

Oh, and lest anyone dismiss her as an attention-seeker unlikely to get anywhere, the 2004 election results say otherwise.

Running for an open Supreme Court seat in a field of eight candidates, she finished third -- and led the voting in Guilford County.

This will be a different kind of election year in North Carolina. There are no races for president, governor or U.S. Senate. The only statewide contests are for appellate judicial offices, including chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

Hunter said she might run for that seat, depending on whom Gov. Mike Easley appoints to fill the position when I. Beverly Lake Jr. retires at the end of this month.

No matter what Easley does, the chief justice position will attract considerable interest. The person elected will be responsible for the administration of the state's entire court system as well as serving as its top judge. This will be the first election for chief justice under a new set of rules.

Until a few years ago, judicial candidates in North Carolina were prohibited by a code of conduct from expressing political views. Now, thanks to legal rulings, they are allowed to engage in "constitutionally protected political activity."

Nevertheless, many judges continue to abide by the practices of the past -- both out of respect for judicial offices and because some of them are lousy politicians anyway. They don't want to take positions on political issues, give political speeches or attend political rallies. They just want to be judges. Why should a judge have to be a politician?

Yet, something else happened at about the same time that the old rules were changing. Partisan labels were dropped from judicial elections. Voters, used to choosing a Democrat or a Republican, became confused. They no longer could tell by looking at the party designation on the ballot which judicial candidates might be conservatives, which liberals. Neither could candidates count on receiving a party-line vote. In addition, they continued to face the age-old problem of voter indifference to judicial races.

So, what's a judge to do?

He can run an old-fashioned campaign, lining up support from influential attorneys, speaking at the few public forums or political rallies where judicial candidates are allowed a minute or two, and buying as much advertising as possible to convey his experience and credentials and hope some voters notice.

Or she can push a political agenda calculated to win votes for reasons that have nothing at all to do with her qualifications to serve in a job that demands knowledge of the law and impartiality.

Martin expressed "every confidence" in the voters' ability to make good judgments. I think they'll need help -- especially from the legal community, the political parties and the media.

Prominent lawyers and attorneys' associations should point out unqualified candidates for high judicial offices. The Republican and Democratic parties, still active in these nominally nonpartisan contests, should support exceptional jurists rather than political opportunists. And newspaper editorial boards should offer informed endorsements in all judicial races. The News & Record's will.

Our courts are too important to be taken over by politicians.